Feds Target Calfornia Marijuana Dispensaries

By Jeralyn, Section Crime Policy
Posted on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 05:05:21 PM EST
Tags: medical marijuana (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The Department of Justice has sent a threatening letter to marijuana dispensaries in California. The Associated Press has obtained the letter and reports:

Federal prosecutors have launched a crackdown on pot dispensaries in California, warning the stores that they must shut down in 45 days or face criminal charges and confiscation of their property even if they are operating legally under the state's 15-year-old medical marijuana law.

There will be a press conference tomorrow at which California U.S. Attorneys announce the new crackdown. At least 16 dispensaries and landlords got the letter which says they are violating federal drug laws, regardless of whether they are in compliance with California law. [More...]

The threat:

[The letters] state that federal law "takes precedence over state law and applies regardless of the particular uses for which a dispensary is selling and distributing marijuana."

"Under United States law, a dispensary's operations involving sales and distribution of marijuana are illegal and subject to criminal prosecution and civil enforcement actions," letters signed by U.S. Attorney Laura Duffy in San Diego read. "Real and personal property involved in such operations are subject to seizure by and forfeiture to the United States ... regardless of the purported purpose of the dispensary."

In June, DOJ issued a new memo to prosecutors informing them that dispensaries and licensed growers could be charged with drug crimes and money laundering.

In a letter sent to the landlord of a dispensary that has been operating for 14 years, DOJ threatened to seek a penalty enhancement for selling drugs within 1,000 feet of schools, parks and playgrounds.

The landlord was ordered to evict the pot club or risk imprisonment, plus forfeiture of the property and all the rent he has collected while the dispensary has been in business, Anton said.

From the June memo:

The Ogden Memorandum was never intended to shield such activities from federal enforcement action and prosecution, even where those activities purport to comply with state law. Persons who are in the business of cultivating, selling or distributing marijuana, and those who knowingly facilitate such activities, are in violation of the Controlled Substances Act, regardless of state law. Consistent with resource constraints and the discretion you may exercise in your district, such persons are subject to federal enforcement action, including potential prosecution.
State laws or local ordinances are not a defense to civil or criminal enforcement of federal law with respect to such conduct, including enforcement of the CSA. Those who engage in transactions involving the proceeds of such activity may also be in violation of federal money laundering statutes and other federal financial laws

< Osama's Wives Granted Permission to Leave Pakistan, Travel Freely | Obama and Holder Then and Now on Medical Marijuana >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Feds Target Calfornia Marijuana Dispensaries | 75 comments (75 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Seriously?!?! (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by iceblinkjm on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 05:21:55 PM EST

Wow. Yet another campaign promise broken. I guess I really will be staying home in 2012.

Obama (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by lentinel on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 05:34:32 PM EST

"couldn't" express an opinion about the Troy Davis case because it was a State issue.

But when it comes to someone being able to smoke a joint in California....

great point, I may (5.00 / 2) (#9)
by Jeralyn on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 05:54:20 PM EST

steal that!


That doesn't follow (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by seabe on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 06:42:27 PM EST

Even though this is a dumb decision and I oppose it, the logic simply doesn't follow. The Troy Davis case involved state law, strictly. California law is in violation of federal law.


So... (none / 0) (#13)
by lentinel on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 06:55:45 PM EST

how about challenging it in the Supreme Court?

This is pure grandstanding by Obama.


I don't know of any legitimate challenge (none / 0) (#16)
by Peter G on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 07:39:22 PM EST

Federal law trumps inconsistent state law under the Constitution's Supremacy Clause. The federal prohibition on "marihuana," while stupid, is a valid exercise of Congressional power under the Commerce Clause, as long interpreted by the Supreme Court. It was specifically upheld fairly recently in Gonzales v. Raich. This is a policy matter, not a legal matter.


Note well which Justices voted against (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by Mr Natural on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 09:32:59 PM EST

the individual medical marijuana grower, i.e., in support of the 1970 Nixon/Hoover (CSA) Act. With the exception of Scalia, they were all center/left.

The next time you hear someone trumpet the virtues of electing a Democratic president so he'll keep the court liberal on the premise that Roe v. Wade is of transcendent importance, remember this.


Hmm, so the scientific fact... (none / 0) (#19)
by Dadler on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 07:57:07 PM EST

...that marijuana cannot possibly be placed beside heroin and cocaine, for instance (but that alcohol easily could), for addictive properties alone, bears no weight?

Good to know.

Not.

(But we all know it's really about simple bribery anyway, since the alcohol industry greases many political palms and livers.)

: No, not in court it doesn't (none / 0) (#32)
by Peter G on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 09:59:04 AM EST

Courts are there to adjudicate legal disputes. Agencies and legislatures make policy decisions. The misclassification of marijuana is a bad policy decision, not a legal error.

Obama is so popular across the country (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by MO Blue on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 05:42:24 PM EST

he doesn't need California voters. Oh, wait.

He sure likes to come here for (none / 0) (#10)
by nycstray on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 06:38:35 PM EST

the campaign cash . . . .


: Well the high rollers only (none / 0) (#12)
by MO Blue on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 06:50:27 PM EST

get one vote come November 2012. Their votes can be nullified by the people who lose their jobs by putting the Medical Marijuana dispensaries out of business or have their jobs eliminated because of the loss of local and State revenue due to this decision.
I was probably one of the few people who do not personally support Obama who thought that Obama was going to be reelected. Now I'm beginning to wonder if he wants another term based on some of the decisions he makes that are bound to lose him votes.

: digby on effect of decision (none / 0) (#17)
by MO Blue on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 07:44:34 PM EST

That ought to please even the most ignorant culture warrior while angering virtually every liberal and libertarian in the state. I wonder how many social conservatives with vote for the president's re-election because of it? link

Makes sense... (5.00 / 0) (#5)
by kdog on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 05:42:44 PM EST

bust the pot store's b*lls, give away guns to gangsters.

How's the case against Goldman, JP, BoA, Citi coming along Holder? Oh yeah, that's hard.

: Exactly (none / 0) (#28)
by Inspector Gadget on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 08:28:01 AM EST

If there was a way to pull off a subtle shift of profits from marijuana sales to those who are so afraid of that plant becoming "legal" it would happen in an instant. We all know it isn't about our health, safety, or behavior. There's too much money involved for this topic to move into what's best for the 99%.

The idiocy of this administration continues (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by Dadler on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 05:46:31 PM EST

Never were gonna get my vote again anyway. Now? I wouldn't even p*ss on them if their hearts were on fire. Luckily, they have neither hearts nor brains.

Phucking Obama with his beer summits. Hypocrisy worthy of the moron he is. God I would really like to put some phlegm right in his lying face.

: Down boy, down... (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by kdog on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 05:50:47 PM EST

save that fire for some OSF action.
Imagination my friend...human shields around all dispensaries? Bearing flowers? That would take numbers, but I see many fringe benefits for the shields.

I'm frankly amazed they've lasted this long. (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by andgarden on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 05:48:21 PM EST

Obama and Holder never said, (5.00 / 2) (#15)
by Peter G on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 07:28:25 PM EST

and couldn't say, that state MMDs are not in blatant violation of federal law. What they did say, and could continue to say -- but are apparently backtracking on -- is that enforcement against MMDs that function in compliance with state law (and not as a front for marijuana dealing to all comers, as some no doubt do) is such a low priority that they cannot see ever getting around to enforcement. The federal government cannot and does not enforce all its laws all the time against everyone any fed knows is violating them. I do not understand why that cannot or should not continue to be their position.


My best guess: (none / 0) (#18)
by andgarden on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 07:50:53 PM EST

these "medical" dispensaries are victims of their own success. They're late night TV jokes, and the Feds were beginning to look ineffectual.


Does anybody really care (none / 0) (#20)
by nycstray on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 08:03:23 PM EST

that some people in CA are smoking pot? The place by me is so low key I didn't notice it for months.

The Feds look ineffectual in many areas, I just can't get that anyone really cares that much about the MMD here.


Well, no, some people are (none / 0) (#21)
by andgarden on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 08:32:14 PM EST

smoking pot everywhere.

the problem with CA is that, according to TV, everyone has access to pot. The ID cards are a punchline. And the FDA basically just determined that there's no merit to the claim that smoked cannabis has a medical application.

I don't think the feds can seriously pretend that this is a minor problem.


and the FDA is wrong (5.00 / 0) (#25)
by Jeralyn on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 01:56:15 AM EST

it's ridiculous to take that position given all the research.

Marijuana use is not a problem, let alone a serious problem.

Please don't spread that nonsense here.


The FDA ? (none / 0) (#29)
by ScottW714 on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 08:55:56 AM EST

You mean the people that are so understaffed they are only inspecting 2% of our imported food, including nearly all the seafood.

In 2010, FDA inspectors physically examined 2.06 percent of all food-related imports. The FDA expects only 1.59 percent of all food imports to be examined this year and even less -- only 1.47 percent -- next year, according to its Office of Regulatory Affairs.

HERE

Seems like their time could be better spent inspecting food coming from China than trying to disprove what is becoming generally excepted medical benefits of marijuana.


I don't have a huge problem with MJ, (none / 0) (#31)
by andgarden on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 09:57:45 AM EST

but I cannot seriously entertain the proposition that it is a legitimate medical treatment when smoked.


Vaporizors. Edibles. (none / 0) (#35)
by kindness on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 10:05:26 AM EST

You want to use the 'smoking is bad' card to make Medical Marijuana illegal? You seem to be all too willing to ignore that the active ingredients can be ingested using vaporizors & edibles.

Why are you ignoring the fact that Medical Marijuana has been shown to be effective for many different ailments? Why do you feel it's your right to make choices for others? You can say you aren't but the argument line you are using says otherwise.


The FDA finds those arguments to be (none / 0) (#36)
by andgarden on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 10:10:37 AM EST

without merit. I agree.

I am not in favor of banning MJ, but I'm not going to throw my mind in the garbage and pretend that a cigarette is "medicine" in order to achieve legalization.

As to vaporization and edibles: the active ingredient is available as a Schedule III prescription medicine.


Patients say... (5.00 / 0) (#40)
by kdog on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 12:44:15 PM EST

Marinol is a sh*tty substitute for the real thing, I'll take their word for it.

You're obsessing on the smoking delivery system AG, I don't get it. If a patient likes the fast delivery of smoking, more power to them. Vapor is fast delivery too, though a good vaporizer can get pricey. And these same stores the feds wanna smash sell ready made edibles...the ganja peanut butter cups are especially delicous.

I'm with ya on medicinal use only being legalized was never the way to go, the play is to legalize outright so a medical dispensing system is not abused like our prescription system for percs and 'dins...we're all adults, there is no reason to have to play this stupid game.


I agree with andgarden on "delivery" (none / 0) (#41)
by oculus on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 12:47:56 PM EST

system of smoking mj for health reasons. Supposed to be rougher on the lungs than reg. tobacco. More contaminates. No filter.


My friends brother... (5.00 / 0) (#46)
by kdog on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 01:01:37 PM EST

who is dying of brain cancer and finds relief and the ability to eat & sleep through medical use...you tell him that cuz I ain't.


My mother and her brother (none / 0) (#47)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 01:09:22 PM EST

both died of brain cancer w/in the last year or so. Med MJ? They were on morphine drips.

That said, her brother, my uncle, had pretty bad arthritis and always said his arthritic joints felt better in the AM if he smoked some MJ in the PM before he went to sleep.

I suppose he could have taken the pill form or via vaporizer if he really wanted to, I never thought to ask...


My friends bro... (5.00 / 0) (#51)
by kdog on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 01:20:59 PM EST

is really on his last legs, she prays for a higher power to take him at this point. Doing the home hospice thing and waiting on the inevitable.

Just a few months ago when I helped them out in a pinch, he was still saying he was gonna beat it with enough conviction for me to believe it. It's awful. And to think people wanna make it harder on such patients, it really gets my goat...all obvious bias aside.


How old is he? (none / 0) (#53)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 02:01:20 PM EST

Not sure... (none / 0) (#54)
by kdog on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 02:15:26 PM EST

late 40's early 50's. Youngest son is graduating high school this year, he really wanted to at least make that milestone.


Ouch. (none / 0) (#55)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 02:26:17 PM EST

fwiw, brain cancer often comes from lung cancer and of course there are clear links between inhaling little burned particles and getting lung cancer...


So now you are a Physician? (none / 0) (#56)
by kindness on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 02:29:33 PM EST

With all due respect you are way out of line. Maybe a little compassion would help you.


: Everything I have stated is completely accurate, (none / 0) (#59)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 02:48:58 PM EST

and are a continuation of the many conversations about smoking tobacco and MJ that kdog and I have been having for, I don't know, 5? 6? 7? years now. I think we're OK with it.

Are you going to advocate for bringing (none / 0) (#57)
by MO Blue on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 02:46:35 PM EST

back prohibition?

Alcohol drinking has long been known to cause cancers of the oral cavity, pharynx, larynx, oesophagus, and liver (IARC Monographs Volume 44, 1988). The addition of breast cancer and colorectal cancer, two of the most common cancers worldwide, to this list indicates that the burden of cancer attributable to alcohol consumption is higher than previously thought. "The scientific evidence relating alcohol drinking to an increased risk of cancer continues to grow as does the contribution of alcohol drinking to the global cancer burden. The clear association with increased risk of breast cancer associated with even modest levels of alcohol drinking is a major concern particularly in view of the changing drinking patterns of women in many countries. link

Are you going to bring more strawmen into the (none / 0) (#61)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 03:06:26 PM EST

conversation?


Seems you want to isolate one (5.00 / 0) (#63)
by MO Blue on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 03:45:48 PM EST

element you think causes cancer while ignoring the research that indicates alcohol increases the risk of

...breast cancer and colorectal cancer, two of the most common cancers worldwide certain cancers

Lung cancer ranks third behind the breast cancer and colorectal cancer and brain cancer does not make the list of the top 10 most common cancers.

Other non-smoking causes of brain cancer are radiation to the head, an inherited (genetic) risk, HIV infection and environmental toxins (for example, chemicals used in oil refineries, embalming chemicals, rubber industry chemicals).

Strawman vs cherry picking?


Bizarre. kdog and I were having a conversation (none / 0) (#70)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 05:02:26 PM EST

about brain cancer and MJ used as a medicine to help with dealing with it.

As an aside, we talked about one of the major origins of brain cancer, which, as it happens, touched on some subjects that kdog and I have been having conversations about since, oh, 2004 or 2005 or so.

fwiw, both my mother's and my uncle's terminal brain cancers originated as lung cancer.

You, of course, may have any conversations you please with whomever you like. But I do hope that it's OK with you if kdog and I have conversations about what we find interesting and relevant, whether or not it's what you try to demand we/I talk about.


Maybe if you want to confine your (5.00 / 0) (#71)
by MO Blue on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 05:29:10 PM EST

conservations to strictly between you and kdog, you might want to use e-mail rather than a thread where everyone has the opportunity to express their opinions on the subject matter and what you write.

I am sorry that you had family members that had terminal brain cancers that originated as lung cancer but the kdog's friend did not meet that criteria. His cancer was not caused by lung cancer or from smokng pot.

You are the one making a demands about what others are allowed to discuss in a thread on the advisability of targeting marijuana dispensaries. Your demand is particularly ironic since the owner of the site is strongly against this action.


And with that final bizarre comment from MO (none / 0) (#72)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 05:41:45 PM EST

I wish you all a great weekend!


: You are ridiculous (5.00 / 0) (#73)
by MO Blue on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 05:45:05 PM EST

Non-smoker... (none / 0) (#58)
by kdog on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 02:47:41 PM EST

until he got sick, he was actually against medical mj before his sister urged him to give it a shot...then he became a believer.

He worked in construction, she wonders about asbestos or something like that as a cause...who knows, but there does seem to be more brain cancer popping up, scary. Some people think the above ground power lines 'round here, cuz we have high breast cancer rates too, and I wonder a bit about all the electronic gadgets that have become prevalent with the low level radiation they emit.


Many brain cancers, but not all of course, (none / 0) (#60)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 03:04:59 PM EST

originate in some other part of the body. Lung or liver or wherever. Though it's probably often not medically relevant to find the original source once someone is diagnosed with brain cancer. I would guess breathing asbestos is probably more likely to give someone lung cancer, initially anyway. Maybe there is something to the cell phones, etc., theory. Good luck to your friend and her bro's family.


: Thanks... (none / 0) (#62)
by kdog on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 03:29:17 PM EST

I saw her (my friend) this past Sunday, poor woman is beaten down, looks like she's aged 10 years in 10 weeks. Caring for her brother, her elderly sick mother, 3 young boys at home...too much for one person to have to bear at a given time.
At least he was a union guy with good bennies and a savings, so his family doesn't have to sweat losing their house or the other horror stories ya hear.

Perhaps a warning on the product (none / 0) (#50)
by oculus on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 01:20:01 PM EST